Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Forgive me if I already said this, but I think one reason for their flouting of regulation is this:
- in NZ, Uber is perfectly sustainable on a legal basis with a few tweaks (for instance, given the data they have, it would be perfectly possible to quote a firm price at booking time, as they know pretty much the time the ride's going to take, incidents en-route excepted).
- in many overseas cities, the taxi industry and local government have a co-dependent relationship, with taxi licenses changing hands for six-figure prices. The only way Uber can bust this is to drive conventional taxis out of business so that the taxi lobby doesn’t exist and local government’s revenue source is dead. They can then push for the adoption of a simpler regulatory system (ironically, one not unlike NZ).
-
Playing devils advocate, the only reasonable justifications NZTA might have could be:
- Uber are outside the jurisdiction (legally very dubious, the locus of the offence is fully inside NZ)
- it's considered impossible to enforce any judgement against Uber because they are physically outside the jurisdiction and the framework for international enforcement of regulatory matters is lacking
- - incitement and conspiracy don't apply to regulatory offences - would need a lawyer to answer that one.. -
I'm interested in Blair's motivation though; was it:
- a genuine belief that islamist terrorism was a serious threat to the integrity of British society and the only way to deal with that was to forcibly impose a friendly, liberal government in all muslim-majority states?
- belligerent liberalism: a belief that western states had the right and duty to impose 'good government' on 'lesser breeds without the law'?
- a belief that Britain's interests were inextricably entwined with the US and could only be served by following in lockstep with whatever the US decided?
- a desire for economic gain from imposing governments that would trade with the US/UK on favourable terms?
- or that he was just a CIA agent doing his job (or his wife was)?
-
And you're surprised that the thinking, progressive people that form the members and supporters of the UK Labour party don't want to elect another Blairite leader?
-
Corbyn doesn’t support Brexit.
Also, the *only* Labour leaders to have won an election since WW2 are Attlee, Wilson and Blair. I see Corbyn as in the Attlee mould. Attlee won a huge majority against all predictions and went on to lead the most radical government in modern British history: nationalised coal, steel and the Bank of England, introduced free secondary education, expanded the welfare state, all in straitened financial circumstances.
-
Hard News: Drug Intelligence, in reply to Ray Gilbert,
If you wanna geek out on acetone toxicity, LD50 is 5g/kg*, so 350g for a 70kg person, which would be around a Kiwi pint. I think you’d do well to swig that much.
You would stand a good chance of losing your eyebrows if you tried smoking an acetone soaked spliff, however.
*Rabbit. Humans might vary.
-
Labour would have won without Scotland in 6 of the 8 elections they won since WW2:
https://commonslibraryblog.com/2014/01/30/general-elections-without-scotland-part-1-1945-2010/(There are various different ways of looking at this, but the RUK is very clearly winnable by Labour. More so, if NI left as well).
I don’t know why people persist in repeating “maths” that is historically bogus.
-
Speaker: Confessions of an Uber Driver…, in reply to BenWilson,
A bit like the Professional Contractors Group in the UK IT industry?
-
Speaker: Confessions of an Uber Driver…, in reply to BenWilson,
Maybe we need a system where you can connect to your neighbour (for a small fee) and so on and thus remove the need for telcos (apart from to reach the world beyond NZ, I guess).
-
Maybe now would be a good time for an HDCA complaint against Mr Frank.